smerf wrote:
Us people in the US feel we don't need the UN or any other of you wussy countries to help us, but you know what you do need us. We helped bail out france in WWII
I never understood this tired argument of "a group of people [not 'we', unless you're actually a WW2 veteran] helped out a country once, therefore that country must agree with everything we do". The situation isn't the same since Iraq isn't invading countries - indeed, it's the US which is doing that, so it's entirely consistent to have opposed the German invasions in WW2, and to now oppose the US invasions.
Yes, if a new superpower emerged and threatened the world, I'll be glad to have the US on "my" side. As indeed I'd be glad even with no new superpowers emerging.
But this is exactly the point! - people aren't anti-war or anti-US because they think they don't need the US, or because they think it isn't powerful. It's *because* of the power, and that it is using this power to invade countries without any care what the rest of the world thinks is why some people are against it.
Your attitude of "we're the most powerful country and can do what we like, and you've no choice but to agree because you need us" is a perfect example of why people are anti-US.
and we helped re establish germany,
You were there were you? (Not that us brits can do much - I mean look at how the French defeated us in 1066 not too long ago).
as a matter of fact we have generally tried to help every country in the world,
That's the problem - I'm not convinced that the US' policy of invading countries, installing governments to their liking, and then crying ten years later when that country hates them is one that particularly works.
what do we get in return the old finger wave and no support from the UN which by the way gets 85% of their funding from the good old US and is one of the things that we strongly supported until now.
"Support" in the monetary sense, possibly, which is the "we're the richest country, we can do what we like" argument. This is hardly the first time the US have refused to go along with what the UN says (see
http://www.cunr.org/priorities/treaties.htm).
If the United Nations makes these rules for countries to follow and then does not back them up then what good is the United Nations, the United States gave the UN and saddam every bit of patience that we could muster, there is a time though to say enough is enough and go in and kick some butt when regulations are not followed,
Well said! So, America should be punished for going against the UN.
and thats what we are doing. America has woke up since 9/11 and we know that the rest of the world don't like it, too bad. These fanatics have played with America and now we are slowly roundin em up and putting em on the old meat hooks to say the least.
Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11. It was someone who was trained and funded by the CIA. I can believe that this war might be about Iraq not following UN rules, or it might be about them possibly having WMD, or it might be to "liberate" the Iraqi ppl, or it might be about oil, but I think "terrorism" is the weakest argument for war. You won't catch any terrorists, and invading countries is a quick way to get lots more people hating you.
